Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Posted on 11/08/2005 5:26:36 PM PST by JTN
The UK Government Could Revert Cannabis to a Class B Drug, but Harsher Penalties Will Only Feed the Black Market, Writes Ethan Nadlemann
Young people laugh at the adult world when we talk about the war on drugs. People pretend we need prohibition on cannabis to protect the young. But it's precisely young people who have always had the greatest access to cannabis. If people in their fifties and sixties want cannabis, they ask their children.
The British government says it is time to consider whether cannabis should revert to a class B drug. That would be an incredibly stupid thing to do. We should be moving in the direction of the decriminalisation and regulation of cannabis.
What would be the consequences of increasing penalties by making cannabis a class B drug? It would not reduce its availability, nor would it make cannabis any more or less potent than it is today. All it would result in is more young people getting criminal records. This would simply intensify the hypocrisy of the government's war on drugs and is one area where Tony Blair is foolishly following in the footsteps of a disastrous US policy.
The bottom line is that there is a way to take cannabis out of the black market - that is to tax it, control it and regulate it. The government pretends that prohibition represents the ultimate form of regulation when in fact prohibition represents the abdication of regulation. That essentially leaves drugs in the hands of criminals.
If people are concerned about the potency of substances, all the better to regulate them. During the alcohol prohibition years, the United States had very little low-potency beer around. Most of it was alcohol that was 70 or 80 or 90 per cent hard liquor.
Why? Because Al Capone wanted to stock those trucks with 80 per cent booze, not 80 per cent water. When you regulate something legally, its potency and its dangers go down. When you drive a drug underground and criminalize it, it is much more likely to be transformed into a more potent substance.
There has barely been a single drug-free society in the history of human civilization. All around the world people have found, planted and discovered substances to alter one's state of consciousness. That's a near-universal truth. To have policy that devotes resources to forcing abstinence is going against human nature, against the forces of supply and demand.
You might ask why the drug prohibition policy is crumbling despite vast subsidies. That's like asking why socialist dictators have crumbled. You had a system that ultimately did not stand for human rights, did not recognize the power of supply and demand, and tried to suppress global commodities markets rather than regulate them.
Tonight in the US we will have almost 500,000 people behind bars for violating a drug law. That's not counting the people who steal to support their habit and all the drug dealers who get involved in violence. We in the US lock up more people for drug law violations than the whole of western Europe for everything, and you have 100 million more people than we do.
That's why it's foolish for the British government to be following in the footsteps of the United States.
This high incarceration rate is absolutely integral to the American drug policy. Last year we arrested more than 1.5 million people on drugs charges -760,000 for marijuana offences and of those, 89 per cent were for possession alone. We arrested 600,000 people simply for carrying a small amount of cannabis.
In the US that means you may lose your government loans for access to university, it means you may lose access to food stamps or housing. We think nothing of giving millions of people a criminal record. Trying to follow in the footsteps of the old apartheid South Africa on race policy.
My philosophy on drugs is harm reduction. That must seek to reduce the negative consequences of drug use such as deaths, disease, overdoses and accidents, and reduce the negative consequences of prohibitionist policies - ie crime, violence, corruption, black markets, and environmental damage to developing countries.
The question is, what is that policy in respect of each drug? In respect of cannabis, the optimal policy is going to be one that taxes it, controls it and regulates it.
I don't understand why Scotland is being such a laggard in respect of heroin. People agree that using heroin is a bad thing. But thousands of people in this country are using it, so the question has to be asked - what do we do?
You can start by getting rid of the waiting lists for methadone and help people to go drug free if that's what they want. But after that you will still be stuck with thousands of people using heroin.
The Drug Policy Alliance is seen as a liberal and progressive organization, but in fact many of our best allies are on the right. One of the good things this Bush administration did was commission some outside reports to look at the effectiveness of the government programmes in a wide range if areas.
The report found that not one of the federal drugs war programmes were being effective. Not a single one.
We're running the largest federal budget in the country's history and keep getting hit by one disaster after another, including oil price shocks. Yet we're spending $20 billion ( UKP 11.3 billion ) a year on the war on drugs.
People - both liberals and conservatives - are beginning to say that we need a different approach. There's growing opposition around the world to the prohibitionist policy. Even in the Far East, which is traditionally always in favour of very harsh prohibition, governments are having to go for harm reduction because of the HIV problem.
This isn't going to happen quickly. But I see myself in the first generation of a long-term political struggle that will succeed after successive generations have taken leadership.
ping
Rant, that's a good word for what you guys do. I also like whine and screed.
Liberal drug policies apparently have a downside, I take it.
What a pity. Liberal drug policies were supposed to usher in a libertarian paradise of harmony, happiness, low crime, and low taxes.
Do you ever make an actual argument, or are you just interested in making snarky comments.
Rather than bother responding to your straw man, I'll only point out that cannabis is still illegal in the UK.
????
Did you read the article? It makes its case reasonably and patiently. What drama and trite slogans are you talking about?
War on drugs
War on drugs
War on drugs
War on drugs
War on drugs
Cannabis
Cannabis
Cannabis
Cannabis
Cannabis
Cannabis
Cannabis
It's pretty much the same as all the other thousands of pot threads posted on FR. At least it came from a site that identifies itself as a rant. I do appreciate honesty.
If people are concerned about the potency of substances, all the better to regulate them. During the alcohol prohibition years, the United States had very little low-potency beer around. Most of it was alcohol that was 70 or 80 or 90 per cent hard liquor.There. Now we have a place to start.Why? Because Al Capone wanted to stock those trucks with 80 per cent booze, not 80 per cent water. When you regulate something legally, its potency and its dangers go down. When you drive a drug underground and criminalize it, it is much more likely to be transformed into a more potent substance.
...
You might ask why the drug prohibition policy is crumbling despite vast subsidies. That's like asking why socialist dictators have crumbled. You had a system that ultimately did not stand for human rights, did not recognize the power of supply and demand, and tried to suppress global commodities markets rather than regulate them.
...
One of the good things this Bush administration did was commission some outside reports to look at the effectiveness of the government programmes in a wide range if areas.
The report found that not one of the federal drugs war programmes were being effective. Not a single one.
BTW, the article is originally from the Scotsman, and I found it, as I said in comment #1, "Via Drug War Rant".
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
That's all the pro-drug warriors do. No logic, substance, or facts...just the usual Libertarians-are-dopers and other obligatory knee-jerk responses.
I do know that I would say all, but far too many.
The report found that not one of the federal drugs war programmes were being effective. Not a single one.
That would be a good topic for a non-rant article. Of course, it still uses the "drug war" phrase, which is almost exclusively used by drug addicts and their non-addict allies.
The report found that not one of the federal drugs war programmes were being effective. Not a single one.
The main thing that the war against cannabis does is prop up the price to the point that it is worth smuggling. That doesn't seem like it should be desired by our government. - Oh well.
The "drug war rant site is excellent information. I'll visit it again.
Genesis 1:29-31
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. 31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
So what?
Like I said, it's not a phrase that's used by people on my side. You never noticed that?
It's Nixon's phrase, and still I ask, so what?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.